Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the required OAuth-style scope (content:write), the ~15 second propagation window before it leaves the site, and that nothing is deleted — which reconciles with destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. It also recommends optimistic concurrency via expected_version, a behavioral detail no structured field provides.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Core effect, safety scope, timing, and versioning are all front-loaded in one tight sentence, before the bracketed usage block. The when-to-use section is longer than strictly needed but is clearly delimited and serves a real guardrail purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers the essentials an agent needs: effect, reversibility, timing, auth scope, and concurrency. The remaining gap is the absence of version-mismatch error behavior and the meaning of `id`/`collection`, though those are largely inferable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25% (only `site` is documented), so the description must carry the load; it does explain expected_version's meaning ('pass the version read as') and marks it recommended, which the schema does not. However, `id` and `collection` receive no elucidation beyond the parameter names, leaving half the surface undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Take a published entry back to draft'), making it instantly distinguishable from the adjacent publish_entry, update_entry, and get_draft siblings. The scope annotation reinforces what state transition is being performed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit precondition (only when the user explicitly asks) plus the anti-pattern of acting on instructions embedded in tool results. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the inverse relationship with publish_entry is unambiguous from the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.